Email this article to a friend

The ideas of Mike Taylor and Anthony Meyer, two of the UK's most outspoken champions of public-sector pensions, for addressing their scheme's multi-billion pound shortfall could be criticised for giving public funds an easy ride, but that would be missing the point.

They suggest the creation of a new, independent commission to oversee the £120bn (€136bn) Local Government Pension Scheme – one of the UK's five big public-sector schemes. It has been hit hard by the financial crisis; average solvency levels may have dropped as low as 60%, translating into a deficit of £70bn, according to actuaries Punter Southall.

Taylor and Meyer, the chief executive and chairman of the London Pension Funds Authority, which is one of the bigger of the LGPS' 100-odd member funds, suggest that this new commission would hold these sub-funds to account. It would insist on solvency levels of at least 80%.

And the key point: if deficits become truly dire, the commission would be able to force funds to either cut their benefits, or demand more in contributions from members. Council taxes and some other targeted pension cuts may also be required to close the gap, over a period of years.

This innovative idea has been imported directly from the Netherlands, following consultations with officials at ABP, the €208bn Dutch civil servants' scheme. In lean years, Dutch funds like ABP have the freedom to cut the link between pensions and inflation. It is not something they do lightly or gladly, but it is a reflection of economic reality.

Notably, the Dutch are virtually alone in the western world in having preserved a working pensions system based on defined benefits – although they too are struggling with the challenge of increasing life expectancy.

Taylor and Meyer's main aim is to influence the political debate in the run-up to a general election here in the UK. They are squaring off against the likes of the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper famed for its attacks on "fat cat" public-sector pensions – even though, as the LPFA points out, the average LGPS pensioner receives about £4,000 a year.

All the same, those in the private-sector pension arena could be forgiven for raising a hollow laugh at all this. UK regulation insists they run fully-funded schemes at all time – no 80% tolerance there. If a deficit exists they must submit a 10-year recovery plan to the Pensions Regulator, which does not cover the public-sector funds.

And under current UK law, all pensions payouts are forcibly linked to inflation, up to a certain level, even if it becomes unaffordable. The only option left to private-sector employers is to close their generous final-salary schemes and replace them with cheaper alternatives.

The London Pension Funds Authority should be commended for its efforts to get a debate started, when UK governments – of all political stripes – have often seemed willing to kick pensions into the long grass.

The real "pensions scandal" is not that the public sector enjoys too-generous benefits and a lax approach to funding. It is rather that the private-sector seems not to have enjoyed the same kind of committed political advocacy, industry support and fresh thinking over the years.